What about the majorities of white Europeans?
Today, to declare yourself a lover of European civilisation, let alone one who wishes to see it demographically preserved, is rank heresy. Such a suggestion leads to identity, national pride and all manner of threats to globalist liberalism. No, better to strip them and shame them with guilt and ostracism if they so much as suggest that their country is built on more than modern liberal propositions. All manner of derogatory terms are given legitimate power against such as these — ‘racist’, ‘white supremacist’, ‘bigot’ etc. — designed to destroy reputations, careers and essentially economically assassinate criticism.
Yet, the garden variety liberal doesn’t seem to realise the hypocrisy of their own totalitarianism, imperialism and witch-hunting; such is the depth of their delusion. Prof. Duchesne asks,
Is not the emphasis on cultural pluralism a form of universalism that requires modes of reflective reasoning (metacultural, historical, and anthropological) that are/were unavailable in other cultures and that threaten/have threatened the particular traditions and standards of diverse cultures? Can Westerners defend their liberal values by tolerating values which negate these liberal values? Should Westerners be deprived of their own particular traditions in the name of the universal promotion of pluralism and diversity?88
As we continue to oppose modern liberalism, we can use the identification of its totalitarianism as a means of putting it on the back-foot, demanding that it answers for its destructive hypocrisy. Let us make our voice heard and give the political class pause for thought.
Chapter 2
The Neocon Slave Ethic
When you think of neocons, you probably think of mighty words like ‘warmonger’ or ‘hawkish’ — something which reflects their aggressive foreign policy. But don’t mistake their principles for the strong foundations of Western civilisation. The neocons are not the spiritual descendants of the European warrior-explorers. Rather, they are draining all vitality from the West by promoting nonchalant producer/consumers to the middle classes and higher, and putting down the critically thinking man who is concerned with the bigger picture.
When we think of genuinely highbrow conversations about politics, we envisage the upper classes at dinner, the men retiring to the billiards room to continue. A crack den is not the first thing that springs to mind. The sincere desire to do more than, for instance, virtue signal how sincerely one has adopted the slave ethic of political correctness, is part of the Western ‘Faustian’ spirit. Of course, the conversation round the billiards table will not change the world overnight, but the host and guests are yet hungry to pursue the truth, long into the night, whether it is attained or not.
The neocon scoffs at such a scene, piously declaring themselves holier than such boors who would dare discuss politics and religion etc. This is their slave ethic: repressing the hearts and minds of the West one conversation at a time, if only that they might be clean enough to remain in the light of acceptable opinion which falls through the Overton window — regardless of where the left has moved it. Their Pharisaical piety, in the cathedral of political correctness, is indeed on a par with that of the leftists.
So, how is neo-conservatism a proper slave ethic?
Let’s look at demographics. Domestically speaking, neocons follow the extreme racial blindness of popular neocons like Prof. Niall Ferguson, believing that radical ethnic changes in demography change nothing essential, so long as you have democracy and modern medicine — but, when it comes to the ethno-nepotism of Israel, no questions are allowed. Israel has developed a very sensible citizenship policy based on jus sanguinis to preserve the character and identity of the nation,89 otherwise granting residency-status to Syrians in the Golan Heights etc. Good for them! But, whether it is criticism of Zionism, or high praise of Israel’s policies, this conversation is another Pandora’s box to the neocons.
In response to the master ethics of thinking for oneself and possessing the masculine virtue of protecting and preserving one’s own people and traditions, neocons propose a subversive counter-ethic in which success is measured simply in how efficient an economic unit one is. Not just, figuratively, how much cotton they can pick, but how readily they will spend most of their wage, or even encumber themselves with debt, in order to add more fuel to the house-fire that is the modern Keynesian economy. But the reason for this counter-ethic isn’t simply economic error, though many neocons would favour an economic system which props up the sort of spending (public or otherwise) they believe to be the cause of Western greatness.
Of course, a greater earning potential comes in large part from physiological strengths, like more testosterone, more imposing physical stature, attractiveness, general intelligence etc., but the weakness of the neocon is their inner-resentment of the traditional ideal of the thinking man. They denigrate those who objectively question the decline of the West as they know this will unmask them as rats racing cheerily to the precipice of the River Weser, to the Pied Piper of Hamelin’s tune.
Their slave ethic is played out on a global scale in the form of the economic imperialism of the more Atlanticist Western countries. On the local scale, it is against those who would stand for cultural and/or ethnic homogeneity — the primary factor for creating a high trust society — or against those who refuse to turn a blind eye to interventionist foreign policy. Such thinking mortifies the neocon bourgeoisie who readily cry the modern equivalent of ‘heretic’. Politics and religion are not on their table. Traditionalism? This is the 21st century, don’t you know? No, the consumerist serf’s idea of intellectual discussion is a tame book club in which faux-right talk is a cover for measuring each other’s ‘success’, as is church or any other social occasion.
Neocons may have had a good run at disguising themselves as part of the ‘right’, but they cannot disguise the cowardly and subversive nature of their ideology, which thus betrays its origins, having no root in conservatism or traditionalism. Kuehnelt-Leddihn defines the true right to distinguish clearly whether an ideology aims to or away from the natural order: ‘The right has to be identified with personal freedom, with the absence of utopian visions whose realisation — even if it were possible — would need tremendous collective efforts; it stands for free, organically grown forms of life. And this in turn implies a respect for tradition.’90
Being, therefore, built on sand, neo-conservatism’s days are surely numbered; where there is a strong Western Civilisation, there can be no platform for the likes of it.
Chapter 3
Democracy Isn’t Working
The left loves democracy, except of course when things fail to go their way. Their juvenile failure to accept recent democratic results does not simply end by drowning in their tears: idle talk of impeachment has yet to relent since the, albeit somewhat disappointing, election of Trump in the US. Also, the left have campaigned vigorously for a second referendum on Brexit, despite its irrefutable economic benefit and the failure of any promised apocalypse to materialise. And examples of the rise of right-wing nationalism can be found now in Norway, Poland and Austria.
The young leftists’ frustration is palpable as they run off to join the terror group, Antifa. Is it any surprise they readily resort to violence? After all, Lenin wrote of the usefulness, even the necessity of democracy in the establishment of a socialist utopia, so long as it was egalitarian. Surely, they can hardly wait and wish to hurry the fulfilment of prophecy along. What’s more, if one has no concern for private property, one probably has far fewer qualms regarding the use of violence.
So, someone such as I, who cherishes private property, must be head over heels with democracy these days. Right? How wrong you are!
The bien pensants, as a whole, are so ingratiating when they not only defend democracy, but do so because ‘the people can be trusted to make the right decisions’. Setting the majority of people aside for one moment (bless them), democracy is, even on paper, the worst politic
al system there is. Churchill (also overrated) was wrong when he said that it was the worst, except for all the others — chortle, chortle. No, Aristotle was right — democracy is simply the corrupted form of a republic. With the rule of many, indeed the rule of a majority, there are greater and more plentiful opportunities for corruption.
As celebrated as it is, democracy pits every conceivable group against the other, destroying trust in whole nations, let alone communities. Classes are divided as the political class offer the working class more of what the middle class are producing, all the while introducing yet another competing group of immigrants to replace a now dependent working class in the labour force. At least if a king becomes corrupt, you can rightfully execute the tyrant; aristocrats can potentially hold others in check; but, democracy is the cancer of political corruption.
Here is a brief summary of how the modern liberal democracy functions: The masses are presented with a dramatic show in which the forces of red vs. blue battle for power, and this circus gives them the comfortable illusion that benevolence is triumphing in the form of their new leader — not really too different to ancient Mesopotamian coronation rituals, only a bit less metaphysically sophisticated. In reality, the red vs. blue display is simply an equilibrium which is reached between one party, which represents the interests of an incentivised dependent class somewhat more than the other, which seemingly represents wealthier corporations a bit more. This is the inexorable result of a system which can be abused by any and every interest group, so long as they have the money or represent a significant number of predictable zealots who will consistently provide votes no matter which way the blind blows.
Western democracies are no less rigged than roulette, and the house always wins; both sides have candidates whose expensive campaign trails have been bought and paid for in return for reciprocal back scratching once the wealthiest interest groups have ‘their man’ in office. This surely explains the phenomena of politicians dramatically arguing over tiny percentages of national debt as though their views differed significantly, or their being incapable of keeping all their campaign promises.
Ultimately, what makes democracy most dangerous is that there is no meritocracy to it. People have decision-making power by virtue of falling out of their mothers and not dying for eighteen years. We wouldn’t wish to employ someone on those criteria alone, yet the overwhelming majority religiously swear by these criteria in politics, not just for themselves but for every country. And, well, if it’s good enough for the overwhelming majority…
Bringing the zombified masses to question their beliefs about democracy is nigh impossible; and it is precisely for this reason that large-scale democracy is so destructive — people are simply too simple for democracy. For years, I have been trying to convince others of the truth of Prof. Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed — that such a system degenerates society by offering everyone, from the working to the political class, a quick grab of power or resources with no concern for the long-term, no thought for heritable interests etc. In that time, I have come to learn a lot about the general psychological condition of Westerners. I now understand why people won’t change their minds about democracy and why granting them political responsibility is extremely irresponsible and promotes further irresponsibility.
Let’s just look at three general psychological traits of the masses: low IQs, the Dunning-Kruger effect and Haidt’s Elephant.
For whites/Europeans, the average IQ is 100.91 Albeit, we have a greater representation among the gifted and intelligent than East Asians, whose average is several points higher overall. Sounds good, so what’s the problem? It is a small, absolute minority which possesses IQs above 120, i.e. those who can gather and infer their own information, let alone the smaller group who actually do. With that in mind, we must look at the Dunning-Kruger effect: despite ‘lack[ing] the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments’, as one study put it, people assume their mental abilities are greater than they are.92
More significantly, when they cannot grasp thinking which is above them, they assume the more intelligent are incompetent and trust instead in their own judgment. This renders the masses unable to select the best representation and, worse, it makes them vulnerable to deception and exploitation by those smarter than themselves (perhaps one of several reasons democratic offices attract sociopaths).93
So, what can stir the masses from their slumber? Haidt’s increasingly popular analogy of an elephant and its rider is a fine way of describing the political defensiveness we are all prone to. Our ideological baggage, especially in our subconscious, is the elephant we (hopefully, with some control) ride around on.94 Overcoming this beast has to come from a gentle process of listening to others’ beliefs, acknowledging shared aims and the good in their intent, thus, giving them the opportunity to be civil and to reciprocate. There is no guarantee they will change their views of course, but you stand a better chance than charging at them, on the offensive; the elephant will reel, the defences will go up and your views will be stubbornly dismissed.
On the large-scale, masses can be manipulated by the self-interested and sincere alike. In Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, he noted typical traits of the mass mentality: ‘impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgment and of the critical spirit, the exaggeration of the sentiments’ etc. Hitler famously made good use of this understanding, swaying the black and white emotional thinking of the masses and completely curtailing Haidt’s Elephant. Such a strategy is open to all and so I candidly employ it with you now.
We share the same wants and needs: security and freedom for ourselves and our loved ones, and the wherewithal to make enough money for leisure and other personal goals. Now, we both need a society that’s stable enough to make this a long-term reality.
Democracy is failing its citizens across the West, society is polarising, and the achievement of your goals in the future is becoming increasingly uncertain. No, ‘we, the people’ cannot realistically be trusted to make the right decisions. According to the almost millenarian religion of progressivism, everything will inevitably get better as time marches on. But, the modern liberal democracy is simply a return to failed ideas of the ancient Greco-Roman world; these were replaced with more libertarian and sustainable systems of government in the Middle Ages — not vice versa.
If we want a high trust society and a prosperous future, we must first humble ourselves and trust in the natural hierarchy of tradition — the old order of aristocracy. What trust can we have in a subversive political class who claim to represent us but instead emotionally manipulate us, serving their own ends and those of wealthy interest groups? Down with democracy, up with the noblesse oblige!
Chapter 4
Europeans Want Hungary, Not Sweden
Should we be surprised that the mainstream media has paid zero attention to poll figures showing that Europeans want an absolute immigration ban on Muslims? After all, the same mainstream media bashed Trump’s correct analysis of the ‘rapefugee crisis’ in Sweden, trying to convince us that things were actually getting better for Swedes!
Where, for instance, was the coverage of Peter Springare — long-time senior investigator at the serious crimes division at the Örebro Police Department, who is now being investigated for hate speech after blowing the whistle on Swedish crime stats on social media? No, the traitors who hold the reins in media and politics aren’t interested in heroes who would enlighten their people, let alone inspire any sense of identity. No wonder police in the UK were so fearful of accusations of racism that the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal occurred, as it is doubtless still occurring across the UK.
Here is yet another example of detrimental media silence, but one we can take courage from: Last month, the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London polled ten thousand Europeans in ten countries and found that the majority agreed with the statement, ‘All further migration from mainly
Muslim countries should be stopped.’95 I was fully expecting these figures to play some major role in the mainstream conversation on immigration but, sadly, the ball was kicked into the long grass.
The most interesting result of this poll was that those who disagreed with the statement never rose above 32% and, even then, this was a relatively high result from Spain. On average then, the mainstream media can only hope to muster the support of around a fifth of Western populations; the majority would rather agree with policy ideas espoused by Hungary.
Hungary’s Prime Minister has taken an increasingly anti-immigrant stance and has challenged EU quotas in court. Where the EU directs that states are expected to take in a certain number, Minister Janos Lazar says, ‘We shall not take anyone in in Hungary [sic.], we do not need immigration in Hungary.’ With its razor wire fencing and laws allowing for the physical removal of migrants as they enter, Hungary’s government seems to be the polar opposite of Sweden’s in many ways. Not least of all in terms of how it is admired by Europeans at large.
The cultural Marxist fake news outlets and the globalist political class would have us believe the West is filled with multiculturalists who have no longing for cultural preservation, no concern for how demographic change might affect the long-term stability of their country. The data, however, are screaming the opposite. They cultural Marxists and globalists are right; there is a subversive minority trying to spoil our countries. But they are that minority! The establishment holds up Sweden as a success, whereas most Europeans secretly want Hungary; so, where do we go from here?
Many would assume a hatred of the other is what I am calling for; perhaps they would think I am calling for violence or that secretly in my heart that is what I really want. Let me be clear: I have dear friends, colleagues and, yes, family who are Muslims; when I look at Sharia, I see a system which is in many ways similar to that of natural law, which prevailed during the Middle Ages of Christendom (which I very much admire and write in support of); I find many people from Muslim-majority countries to generally possess virtuous qualities, not just towards their own, but toward the stranger in need of hospitality, which I would like to see more of amongst my own people. Nevertheless, their core values do not comport with those of Europe and so it would be preferable for them to have their own communities with their own laws and their own separate civilisation.
The Uniqueness of Western Law Page 9